1 2026:CGHC:21463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8000 of 2022 1 - Dr. Mahavir Singh Jowhary, S/o Dr. S N Jowhary, Aged About 48 Years R/o Aminpara, Puranibasti, Police Station, Puranibasti, Raipur, District - Raipur ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate, Health Services, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through - Director, Health Services, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical Officer And Medical Officer, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Joint Director, Directorate, Health Services, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Medical Officer And Medical Officer, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Abhuday Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board NIRMALA RAO 2 07.05.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the orders dated 03.07.2021 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 29.07.2021 (Annexure P/2) as illegal. II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to grant place of posting to the petitioner, in light of his qualifications. III. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to treat the period since 19.03.2016 as period on duty. IV. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to grant the petitioner arrears of pay and grant him timely promotions. V. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer (M.S. Surgery) in the year 2006 and subsequently, acquired the degree of DNB (Neuro Surgery) in the year 2014. She would submit that in the year 2015, the petitioner was posted as a Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Abhanpur. Thereafter, his services were transferred from Abhanpur to District Hospital, Durg, Trauma Centre vide order order 30.10.2015. It is contended that as no relieving order was issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner 3 could not join his duties at the transferred place pursuant to the order of transfer, therefore, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 and vide letter dated 14.3.2016, the Civil Surgeon, Durg was directed to permit the petitioner to join his services. She would argue that the petitioner submitted his joining application before respondent No.4 on 19.3.2016 but he was asked to submit the same alongwith a relieving order. She would submit that the petitioner wandered from pillar to post, but no heed was paid to his grievance, and ultimately, an order has been passed by respondent No.1 on 29.7.2021, whereby the services of the petitioner came to an end pursuant to provisions of Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (for short ‘Leave Rules, 2010’). It was stated that the petitioner had remained absent from service. She would submit that the petitioner has placed sufficient documents on record to demonstrate that there was no mistake on his part. The petitioner repeatedly approached the respondent authorities but respondent No.3 failed to issue a relieving order, therefore, he was not permitted to join his duties at the transferred place. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 also issued directions to respondents No.3 & 4, but no heed was paid and subsequently, respondent No.1 itself passed the impugned order whereas, the authority concerned was aware of all the facts and circumstances of the case. She would pray to allow this petition. 4 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that though the services of the petitioner were transferred from Abhanpur to Durg but he failed to join the services at the transferred place and remained absent from duty for a considerable period, therefore, respondent No.1 exercising power under Rule 11 of the Leave Rules, 2010, passed an order treating the case of the petitioner as one of deemed resignation. It is also contended that the petitioner was duly informed to join at the transferred place through a paper publication, but he failed to do so; therefore, respondent No.1 took the aforesaid decision. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent authorities. In the year 2015, the petitioner was posted at Community Health Centre, Abhanpur. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were transferred from Abhanpur to District Hospital Durg, Trauma Centre. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 failed to issue a relieving order in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner approached respondent No.4 as well as respondent No.1 for redressal of his grievances. Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 14.3.2016 directed respondents No.3 & 4 to sort out the matter 5 immediately, but no action was taken. It is not a case where the petitioner remained absent from services for decades rather, he appears to have been harassed by respondents No.3 & 4. Despite the specific order of transfer, respondent No.3 did not issue a relieving order. Rule 11 of the Leave Rules, 2010 defines the maximum period of absence from duty and the same is reproduced herein below: “11. Maximum period of absence from duty- (1) No Government servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years. (2) A Government servant who remains absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years other than on foreign service, with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from the Government service unless the Governor, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise determines: Provided that a reasonable opportunity shall be given to that Government servant to explain the reasons for such absence before the provisions of sub-rule (2) are invoked.” 6) A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that a government servant cannot be granted leave for a continuous period of three years but at the same time, a government servant who remains absent beyond the prescribed period, with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from Government service. It is further provided that a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to the government servant to explain 6 the reasons for such absence. In the present case, a press note was issued on 10.6.2021, whereas the impugned order was passed on 29.7.2021. It is not a case of the State that the petitioner avoided the usual mode of service of notice. It appears that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner through registered post and instead, a press note was directly published in the newspaper on 10.6.2021 and immediately thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 29.7.2021. The action appears to have been deliberate on the part of the State authorities. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the order was not passed in accordance with the proviso appended to Rule 11 of the Leave Rules, 2010. 7) With regard to the period of absence, the services of the petitioner were transferred and he was not permitted by respondent No.3 to join at the transferred place of posting. Therefore, the absence from service was not deliberate in nature, and the impugned decision suffers from malafide. Further, the representation of the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 3.7.2021 (Annexure – P/1). 8) Accordingly, both the orders Annexure – P/1 and P/2 dated 3.7.2021 & 29.7.2021, respectively, are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, seniority and increments attached to the post. 7 9) Respondent No.1 shall issue an order of posting within a period of 30 days from today and the entire claim shall be settled within a further period of 30 days thereafter. 10)With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi